HILL COUNTRY CORPORATION LTD V HASTINGS DISTRICT COUNCIL HC NAP CIV-2010-441-222
The Court exercised its discretion to allow only a modest uplift to the schedule 3 preparation allowance because the respondent failed to justify an eightfold increase; the preparation allowance was increased from 0.25 days to 0.5 days and the prior costs order otherwise stood.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- openlaw-5f9dfc1c_3ba8_4a1d_9888_3cb366681906.pdf
- Parties
- Appellant: Hill Country Corporation Ltd; Respondent: Hastings District Council
- Court
- High Court
- Jurisdiction
- New Zealand
- Judgment Date
- 19 April 2011
- Procedural Posture
- Resource Management Act 1991 — Leave to Appeal to Court of Appeal (s 299) / Costs Application Following Refusal of Leave
- Outcome
- Respondent's application for increased costs granted in part.
- Legal Topics
- Leave to Appeal, Costs Assessment, High Court Rules R 14.6(3)(a), S 299 RMA
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Hill Country Corporation Ltd
Appellant
Hastings District Council
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Resource Management Act 1991 — Leave to Appeal to Court of Appeal (s 299) / Costs Application Following Refusal of Leave
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the respondent's costs should be increased under High Court Rules r 14.6(3)(a) because actual preparation time substantially exceeded the schedule 3 allowance
- 2 Whether an increase from 0.25 days to 2 days (or some lesser increase) was justified
Ratio Decidendi
The Court exercised its discretion to allow only a modest uplift to the schedule 3 preparation allowance because the respondent failed to justify an eightfold increase; the preparation allowance was increased from 0.25 days to 0.5 days and the prior costs order otherwise stood.
Court Disposition
Respondent's application for increased costs granted in part.
Orders
- Previous costs order affirmed subject to adjustment of the preparation allowance from 0.25 days to 0.5 days
- Costs remain awarded to the respondent on a category 2B basis pursuant to r 14.8(1)
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
HILL COUNTRY CORPORATION LTD V HASTINGS DISTRICT COUNCIL HC NAP CIV-2010-441-222 19 April 2011IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALANDNAPIER REGISTRYCIV-2010-441-222IN THE MATTER OF the Resource Management Act 1991AND IN THE MATTER OF an appeal from a decision of the HighCourt pursuant to s 299 of the ActBETWEEN HILL COUNTRY CORPORATION LTDAppellantAND HASTINGS DISTRICT COUNCILRespondentHearing: (On the papers)Counsel: J M von Dadelszen for RespondentM E J Macfarlane and L J Blomfield for AppellantJudgment: 19 April 2011JUDGMENT OF BREWER J(Costs)_________________________________________________________________________________SOLICITORSSainsbury Logan & Williams (Napier) for AppellantBannister & von Dadelszen (Hastings) for Respondent[1] On 17 December 2010, I refused the appellant leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal on the basis that the appeal raised no question of law that was of general and public importance. In accordance with r 14.8(1) I awarded costs to the respondent on a category 2B basis.[2] The respondent now applies for increased costs pursuant to r 14.6(3)(a) of the High Court Rules. The respondent submits that its actual preparation time in the leave proceeding substantially exceeded the allowance under schedule 3. It seeks an increase on its preparation allowance from 0.25 days to 2 days.[3] While the setting of costs is a matter of discretion,1 departure from the standard costs regime is generally justified only where the applicant can show that its reasonable costs substantially exceeded the prescribed time allocated.2[4] In the present proceeding it would be excessive to increase costs on preparation eightfold. The issues raised were not new; the proceeding was straightforward.[5] The appellant submits than an increase on preparation time from 0.25 to 0.5 days might be justified. I agree and make an order adjusting my previous costs order accordingly.________________________________Brewer J1 Rule 14.1.2 Mansfield Drycleaners Ltd v Quinny's Drycleaning (Dentice Drycleaning Upper Hutt) Ltd(2002) 16 PRNZ 662 (CA) at [27]; Glaister v Amalgamated Dairies Ltd [2004] 2 NZLR 606 (CA) at [19]; Holdfast NZ Ltd v Selleys Pty Ltd (2005) 17 PRNZ 897 (CA) at [44].